Want to defeat evil? Then please join SaveCalifornia.com in fighting to stop FOUR anti-parent bills, trampling family values, on the floor of the California State Assembly.
Together, we have a plausible chance to kill these awful Democrat bills, since radical anti-parent bill SB 866 has stalled, which is “paving the way” to stall the other three bills when the California Legislature returns from its taxpayer-funded vacation on August 1.
Additional factors are the “hot” election, making legislators more sensitive to opposition, and redistricting, which means many current assemblymembers are running in different districts and trying to appeal to brand-new voters. Your calls this month of July will make more of an impact!
3 ACTION STEPS — SCROLL DOWN FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
Anti-parent bills on or headed to the Assembly floor:
SB 866 threatening children with coerced vaccines behind parents’ backs
SB 1184 letting health insurers disclose children’s info to school or county reps behind parents’ backs
SB 1419 eliminating parental rights to see all of their children’s medical records
SB 1479 mandating schools develop a “Covid test” plan, targeting every boy and girl for invasive testing, tracking, and quarantining, shoving aside parental rights and wishes
Act now — go for the win! Please especially call the district office numbers.
STEP 1. Leave voicemails for the deciding-vote Democrats and 1 independent* 7pm to 8am and weekends, without identifying yourself, since most legislative offices “trash” messages from outside their districts: Tell them, “Don’t you dare eliminate parental rights! Oppose the anti-parent bills SB 866, SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479.”
* When clicking below to see a new seat for which a current assemblymember is running, scroll down to the lower right for the map of the new district “after 2020 redistricting cycle”
Tina McKinnor (running for the new AD61) 916-319-2062 and 310-412-6400: A new assemblymember (sworn in June 20), McKinnor is untested and needs your calls.
Lisa Calderon (running for the new AD56) 916-319-2057 and 562-692-5858. She is running for a new district covering South El Monte, Pico Rivera, Rose Hills, Whittier, La Puente, Walnut, and Diamond Bar. Some local activists are targeting her, and with enough calls, might be moved to abstain.
Eloise Reyes (running for the new AD50) 916-319-2047 and 909-381-3238: Claims to be in favor of parental rights, but robotically voted for SB 866 in committee; tight with Democrat bosses, she needs your calls
Mike Fong (running for the new AD49) 916-319-2049 and 323-264-4949: Needs to remember Asian family values and needs your calls
Blanca Rubio (running for the new AD48) 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457: She voted yes on the SB 866 amendments; her sister, Susan Rubio, abstained on SB 866 on the Senate floor
Luz Rivas (running for the new AD43) 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911: She voted yes to amend SB 866; however, she “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Mike Gipson (running for the new AD65) 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408: Voted yes to amend SB 866, but thinks he’s a Christian and might support clear-cut parental rights
Jose Medina 916-319-2061 and 951-369-6644: Representing northeast Riverside County, Medina will reportedly abstain on SB 866 — make sure
Miguel Santiago (running for the new AD54) 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646: Vote yes on the SB 866 amendments, but used to abstain more, and represents mostly pro-parental-rights Hispanic families
Isaac Bryan (running for the new AD55) 916-319-2054 and 310-641-5410: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments
Wendy Carrillo (running for the new AD52) 916-319-2051 and 213-483-5151: She abstained on the SB 866 amendments
Robert Rivas (running for the new AD29) 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. His district overlaps that of Democrat State Senator Anna Caballero, who abstained on SB 866.
Joaquin Arambula (running for the new AD31) 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, personally believes in traditional parental rights, and represents mostly Hispanics
Kevin McCarty (running for the new AD6) 916-319-2007 and 916-324-4676: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and also abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide
Freddie Rodriguez (running for the new AD53) 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Used to abstain on controversial bills.
Eduardo Garcia (running for the new AD36) 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360: From the sprawling Imperial Valley region with many Hispanic families
Jacqui Irwin (running for the new AD42) 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Represents part of state senator Henry Stern’s district, who twice abstained on the Senate side
Tasha Boerner Horvath (running for the new AD77) 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and represents a formerly Republican district with pro-family constituents
Cottie Petrie-Norris (running for new AD73) 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments and “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Jim Cooper (just won election to be Sacramento County sheriff) 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on AB 1797 creating a state “Covid vaccine” database
Sabrina Cervantes (running for the new AD58) 916-319-2060 and 951-371-6860: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Also initially abstained on AB 2098 punishing good doctors and AB 2223 permitting infanticide, but then later changed her votes to yes after both bills passed
Tom Daly 916-319-2069 and 714-939-8469: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. He also abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide, and initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes. Has abstained on other bills over the years
Al Muratsuchi (running for the new AD66) 916-319-2066 and 310-375-0691: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and also initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes
Adrin Nazarian 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098
Brian Maienschein (running for the new AD76) 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments and voted no on the original SB 866 in committee
Chad Mayes (former Republican, now “independent”) 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; in May, he also voted no on AB 2223 and abstained on AB 2098
Chris Holden (running for the new AD41) 916-319-2041 and 626-351-1917 and 909-624-7876: Earlier he “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866; however, he voted yes on the SB 866 amendments
Adam Gray (running for the new CD13) 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 and 209-521-2111: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments and earlier “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Timothy Grayson (running for the new AD15) 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on AB 2098, punishing good doctors against the “Covid vaccines”
Ken Cooley (running for the new AD7) 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also voted no on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098
Jordan Cunningham 916-319-2035 and 805-549-3381: He was the only Republican to abstain on the SB 866 amendments; however, he voted no on the original SB 866 in committee
Rudy Salas (running for the new CD22) 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 and 559-585-7170: Abstained on SB 866 amendments, but earlier he “confirmed no on SB 866”
Patrick O’Donnell 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 and 310-548-6420: Abstained on SB 866 amendments, and previous issued public statement promising to vote no on the original SB 866
Sharon Quirk-Silva (running for the new AD67) 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515: Voted no on amending SB 866 and has “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
James Ramos (running for the new AD45) 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023: Voted no on amending SB 866 and has “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Carlos Villapudua (running in the new AD13) 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479. Voted no amending SB 866 and earlier “confirmed he will be voting no” on the original SB 866; he also issued a public statement promising to vote no on the original SB 866
STEP 2. Leave voicemails for the 19 Republican assemblymembers 7pm to 8am and weekends, without identifying yourself: Tell them, “I expect you to stand and speak on the floor against the four anti-parent bills. Raise your microphone to expose SB 866, SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479.”
Megan Dahle (running for the new AD1) 916-319-2001 and 530-223-6300 James Gallagher (running for the new AD3) 916-319-2003 and 530-895-4217 Frank Bigelow 916-319-2005 and 209-267-0500 and 559-673-0501 Kevin Kiley (running for the new CD3) 916-319-2006 and 916-774-4430 Heath Flora (running for the new AD9) 916-319-2012 and 209-599-2112 Jim Patterson (running for the new AD8) 916-319-2023 and 559-446-2029 Devon Mathis (running for the new AD33) 916-319-2026 and 559-636-3440 Thurston Smith (running for the new AD34) 916-319-2033 and 760-244-5277 Vince Fong (running for the new AD32) 916-319-2034 and 661-395-2995 Jordan Cunningham 916-319-2035 and 805-549-3381 Tom Lackey (running for the new AD34) 916-319-2036 and 661-267-7636 Suzette Valladares (running for the new AD40) 916-319-2038 and 661-286-1565 Phillip Chen (running for the new AD59) 916-319-2055 and 714-529-5502 Kelly Seyarto (running for the new SD32) 916-319-2067 and 951-894-1232 Steven Choi (running for the new AD73) 916-319-2068 and 714-665-6868 Randy Voepel (running for the new AD75) 916-319-2071 and 619-258-7737 Janet Nguyen (running for the new SD36) 916-319-2072 and 714-843-4966 Laurie Davies (running for the new AD74) 916-319-2073 and 949-240-7300 Marie Waldron (running for the new AD75) 916-319-2075 and 760-480-7570
STEP 3. Call your own assemblymember’s office (and especially who might become your new assemblymember, state senator, sheriff, or congressmember) during business hours or after-hours, and identify yourself and where you live. Tell him or her, “Don’t you dare eliminate parental rights! Oppose the anti-parent bills SB 866, SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479.”
See who wants to represent you by clicking the new district maps above. To find your own, current state assemblymember, click here and enter your information.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” The Bible, Ephesians 6:1-3
We’re living in historic, even revolutionary, times. As the U.S. Supreme Court acts for the sake of constitutional justice, here’s some perspective to help you make sense of it all.
No more Roe won’t help California babies
Finally, after 49 years of Roe v. Wade’s unconstitutional, murderous agenda, it’s gone and abortion policies revert to 50 states.
Yet the demise of Roe won’t help California or other states ruled by abortion-loving Democrats. This is all the more reason to stand up for life. Especially since Newsom & Co. want to force California taxpayers to subsidize out-of-state abortions.
A top need of California pro-lifers this fall is to defeat SCA 10, which would go on the ballot to “codify” abortion on-demand in the California State Constitution. By proclaiming “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion,” SCA 10 would continue the California carnage of taxpayer-funded abortion procedures or pills for any girl or woman, regardless of a girl’s age, the number of abortions she’s already had, or her ability to pay. To be placed on the November ballot, SCA 10 requires a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate (it already passed the Senate), followed by an affirmative majority vote of the People.
Today’s SCOTUS ruling striking down the unconstitutional, unscientific 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinions was 6 to 3 (Republican-president-nominated judges for the Constitution and life vs. Democrat-president-nominated judges for unconstitutional murder of pre-born babies). Read the history-making decision yourself
Get ready for more gun-owner freedoms
Unlike abortion, the “sacred cow” idol of Democrat politicians, and which is again a question of states’ rights, the fundamental rights of safety-conscious, constitutional gun owners will likely increase in California now that the U.S. Supreme Court has majorly upheld the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The June 23 ruling portends a new era of constitutional equity for gun owners in America. Relying on the God-given liberties preceding our Constitution, it concludes:
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The practical effect in California is this much-needed, admirable ruling will be used in both state and local lawsuits against the unconstitutional laws of the Democrat politicians. It might take a couple of years, but gun-owner rights organizations are planning to use the New York State decision against California’s unconstitutional ban on “assault weapons,” California’s unconstitutional ban on magazines over 10 rounds, California’s unconstitutional background checks, and the unconstitutional ban of concealed weapon permits in Democrat-controlled counties, such as Los Angeles. So have hope!
Just the facts: Why gas prices are so high
Why isn’t there a second Revolutionary War over oppressive gas prices? Because the godless government schools have been very successful at avoiding teaching children the Bible, the Constitution, real history, principles of logic, evidence-based research, and truisms such as the commerce law of Supply and Demand.
This week, SaveCalifornia.com produced and posted these three slides to help people realize who to blame for robbing them of their God-given resources and raising gas prices. Please enjoy and share!
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813, Scottish advocate, judge, writer and historian
If you haven’t heard yet, on May 26, the Democrats that rule the California State Assembly powered through Covid medical tyranny bills AB 2098 and AB 1797 and the infanticide legalization bill AB 2223.
AB 2098 revokes licenses of doctors that counsel patients against the “Covid vaccine”
AB 1797 puts Californians into a database, segregating them by “Covid vaccine” status
AB 2223 prohibits law enforcement from investigating infant deaths
That was the worst thing of all. But the second worst was zero Republicans spoke against any of these bad bills. All 19 of them refused to speak to expose these bills’ great harms.
And I have to tell you, based on other times this week that Assembly Republicans vigorously spoke out (such as on protecting Central Valley water), I believe these medical tyranny bills and infanticide bill could have been defeated if exposed in a verbal floor fight.
If you were in this fight, you have my sincere thanks and admiration for calling Sacramento in an effort to stop these horrific bills. We had to try, because last year a vaccine passport bill and a forced jab bill were pulled for lack of support. And this year, several Covid tyranny bills have already been dropped by their authors.
The votes Despite no Assembly floor fight exposing how bad these 3 bills are, the initial votes were still close. With our goal of denying these bills a majority vote (41 yes votes), we successfully pulled off more than a dozen Democrats; so AB 2098 was declared “passed” by just 5 votes, AB 1797 by only 2 votes, and AB 2223 by 4 votes). However, by the end of the session, votes had changed, both sides coalesced, and vote disparities increased.
See the final votes (members are allowed to change their votes by the end of the session as long as they don’t change whether the bill passed or not): AB 2098 | AB 1797 | AB 2223
The future At this point, the only way I see to defeat these 3 awful bills is IF they’re amended in the State Senate, are sent back to the Assembly floor for concurrence votes — but this time, Republicans lovingly raise their microphones to shockingly expose and defeat these bills.
However, if AB 2098, AB 1797, and AB 2223 pass the entire California Legislature in August, and are signed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, what then? I strongly believe there should be constitutional lawsuits filed against them all. Here’s why:
AB 2098 squashing medical independence on the “Covid vaccine” is an unconstitutional regulation of speech. By targeting doctors for Covid-related “misinformation or disinformation,” AB 2098 unconstitutionally targets professional speech. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Pickup v. Brown (2013), “…doctor-patient communications about medical treatment receive substantial First Amendment protection.”
The appellate court also stated, “where a professional is engaged in a public dialogue, First Amendment protection is at its greatest. Thus, for example, a doctor who publicly advocates a treatment that the medical establishment considers outside the mainstream, or even dangerous, is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment—just as any person is.”
The author of AB 2098 knows his bill might be unconstitutional: On April 20, he amended AB 2098 to make its provisions “severable … if any provision of this act or its application is held invalid.”
AB 1797 segregating Californians by vaccine status, race and ethnicity, violates Californians’ privacy rights by eliminating confidentiality. By requiring, as the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 1797 describes, “health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies to disclose the specified immunization information,” this bill violates the constitutional privacy rights of many Californians.
In 1972, California voters overwhelmingly added “privacy” to the list of “inalienable rights” guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution. In 1975, the California Supreme Court, in White v. Davis, relied on California’s newly-affirmed constitutional right of privacy to prevent police officers from posing as college students and gathering intelligence on what is said in the classroom when the intelligence gathered bore no relation to any suspected illegal activity.
As the court wrote: Moreover, the surveillance alleged in the complaint also constitutes a prima facie violation of the explicit “right of privacy” recently added to our state Constitution. As we point out, a principal aim of the constitutional provision is to limit the infringement upon personal privacy arising from the government’s increasing collection and retention of data relating to all facets of an individual’s life.
By violating Californians’ medical privacy – in the classroom and otherwise – AB 1797 is in direct conflict with the California Constitution.
AB 2223 robs already-born babies of their constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Since this isn’t about abortion, but infanticide — which is murder — we can foresee a federal constitutional lawsuit demanding the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If should be tried, if there’s indeed a pro-life majority at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thank you again for fighting these awful bills through your phone calls or by donating to SaveCalifornia.com. We had to try, and I’m grateful you did your part. But most Assembly Democrats shirked their constitutional pledges and all the Republicans went mute.
Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. Proverbs 31:8
If you faint in the day of adversity, Your strength is small. Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. Proverbs 24:10-11
RSS 2.0 Feed